West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/91/2016

Amita Pal Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.91/2016

 

             Amita Pal Dey, W/O Sidhartha Dey, vill. & P.O. Irpala, P.S. Ghatal, District - Paschim

             Medinipur. …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

             I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Notice to be served Branch Office,

             Kharagpur, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101   ....………………….….Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

            For the O.P.             : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 26/04/2017

                               

ORDER

                       Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This is a case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act.  

                       Facts of the case, in brief, is that Sidhartha Dey @ Pintu, the husband of the complainant Smt Amita Pal Dey, was the registered owner of a motor cycle being no.WB34AL/3348 and his said vehicle was duly insured under policy being no.3005/93244488/00/000 with the O.P.-Insurance Company and the said policy was valid from 20/08/2014 to 19/08/2015.  Unfortunately,  the husband of the complainant met with an accident while he was driving his said motor cycle on 11/03/2015 and he thereafter died due to such accident.  A police case being no. Arambag P.S. Case no.283 of 2015 of dated

Contd……………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

11/03/2015 was started and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted in that police case against the driver of the offending truck.  After the death of her husband, the

complainant submitted claim from in respect of the policy of her husband as nominee before the O.P.-Insurance Company.  After receiving such claim form along with documents, the O.P. directed the complainant to submit an indemnity cum declaration before the office of the O.P. and the complainant accordingly submitted the same.   Unfortunately, the O.P. repudiated the claim of insurance on the ground that the                             deceased-insured was holding learner licence without any pillion rider having valid driving licence.  Such act of repudiation is illegal and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per policy condition and for harassment cost of Rs.25,000/-.

                  The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a  written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party –Insurance Company that  on verification of the driving licence of the deceased-insured Sidhartha Dey it was found that the said licence was in the nature of learner licence and he was not authorized to drive the said motor cycle without any assistance driver and the said learner licence cannot be treated as valid driving licence authorized to drive any motor cycle or any other vehicles.  As the deceased breached the terms and conditions of the policy regarding driver clause, so the O.P.-Insurance Company repudiated that claim of insurance.  O.P.-Insurance Company therefore claims dismissal of the case with costs.

                 To prove her case, the complainant has examined herself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit and during her evidence on oath three documents marked as Exhibit 1 to 3 respectively. On the other hand, O.P. adduce no evidence.

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Is the case barred by limitation?

3)Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

4)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                    Contd……………P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

 

Decision with reasons

  For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together    for consideration.

             It is not denied and disputed that Sidhartha Dey, since deceased, the husband of the complainant was the holder of policy being no.3005/93244488/00/000 in respect of his

motor cycle being no.WB34AL/3348.  The said policy was admittedly issued by the               O.P.-Insurance Company covering the period from 20/08/2014 to 19/08/2015.  It is also admitted by the parties that the said Sidhartha Dey while driving his said motor cycle on 11/03/2015, unfortunately met with an accident as a owner cum driver of the motor cycle and he expired due to such accident.  Fact also remains undisputed that on the date of accident, Sidhartha Dey was the holder of a learner licence.  After the death of Sidhartha Dey, the complainant Amita Pal Dey, being the nominee-wife of the said policy, submitted claim before the O.P.-Insurance Company and the O.P.-Insurance Company repudiated the said claim vide their letter dated 15/06/2011 on the ground that  the owner of the aforesaid vehicle breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under driver’s clause due to learner licence which is not effective and valid licence.  Said learner licence of the deceased-insured has been marked as Exhibit-2 in this case.  From this learner license’ (Exhibit-2) it appears that the said learner licence was issued authorizing the person to drive a motor vehicle of any description throughout India as a learner subject to the provision of  Rule-III of the C.M.V., Rules 1989 which prohibits  him from driving any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person below duly licensed to drive the vehicle and in every case, the vehicle carries L plate both in front and in rear of the vehicle. From the copy of FIR (Exhibit-3), so submitted by the complainant, we find that at the time of accident, Sidhartha Dey alone was driving his motor cycle and there is nothing in the FIR to show that at the time of such driving of the vehicle, he had besides him any other person duly licensed to drive the vehicle with him.  Therefore it appears that the deceased policy holder Sidhartha Dey violated the terms and conditions of the  learner licence at the time of accident and therefore the O.P.-Insurance Company was rightly justified in repudiating the claim of the policy on the ground of beach of terms and conditions of the driver’s clause of Insurance Policy vide their letter dated 15/06/2016.  Therefore we are of the view that the O.P.-Insurance company is not guilty of deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of insurance.

Contd……………P/4

 

 

( 4 )

 

                     All the points are accordingly disposed of. 

                     In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                 that the complaint case no.91/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

               Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.                         Sd/- S. Sarkar                                 Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                                    Member                                           President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur